The case for and against arson

FORRosario
signed a confession that police used to frame the arson as a Molotov
cocktail fire, ignited by Rosario and two friends tossing firebombs
through first-floor windows.

AGAINSTThe confession,
written in English, a language Rosario did not understand, may have
been coerced. The investigation failed to produce any evidence of a
Molotov cocktail.

FORA
neighbor said he saw Rosario standing with his left arm raised in front
of the bay windows and heard glass breaking. He said he saw two other
men standing nearby.

AGAINSTRosario and two others
have always maintained they were nearby when they responded to screams
and the smell of smoke, breaking windows to try to get inside.

FORAs
evidence of arson, investigators said the fire began in two different
rooms, pointing to heavy charring and a common wall that stood intact.

AGAINSTExperts
now say those hot spots were ideal for heavy burning because of good
ventilation and a cubby beneath the front stairs. And the common wall,
protected by plaster, would not have burnt through.

FURTHER ARGUMENTS AGAINSTThere are no windows in the front hall where investigators said a firebomb landed.

From where Rosario was spotted outside, a flaming bottle could not have been thrown into the front hall.

Investigators
ignored the heater in the badly burned living room. Experts now say it
is at least as likely as arson for the fireâ€™s source.